Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor EastEnders characters

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Tyrenius (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor EastEnders characters[edit]

A list of lists of minor characters for every year of a soap operas existence??? These lists are completely unnotable WP:FICT and WP:PLOT filled fancruft in each and every list. What is notable about a character who appears in a single episode to visit someone in the hospital or to be asked to pull a prank (highlights from one of the year articles). --Collectonian 20:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the lists of fancruft being linked to in this article.

Delete all. They'll still have List of characters from EastEnders and List of past EastEnders characters, many of which have individual pages. AnteaterZot 20:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the minor characters were merged into lists because they were not notable enough to have their own articles. Listing minor characters like this is a common occurrence. Some of them contain real world information and sources, like this one, and they should not be deleted. The ones that dont can be improved. Delete the parent "List of minor EastEnders characters", but not the individual yearly lists.Gung adin ♦ 21:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 21:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any without real world information, and merge the characters that do have significant real world information to the main minor character list. TTN 21:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gungadin. This is the last thing I expected to see happen. They can all be improved, and should not be deleted, even if they haven't been improved by the end of this AFD, because Wikipedia does not have a deadline. ^anemoneI_projectors 21:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VERY weak Keep: I'm not bias as I neither watch this soap nor agree/disagree as such to these pages' existance. However, I have had quite alot of input on issues of a similar nature on Emmerdale/Coronation Street, where having a consolidated minor characters page for these characters is proving better (organisation in particular) than having single articles. Yes, it would be great if Wikipedia wasn't treated as a soapbox by so many, and my ideal way of working is just to include major characters with interesting/notable biographies, but unfortunately this isn't going to change any time soon, if at all. To remove the pages proposed would likely be very controversial, and either cause recreation in a similar, but slightly different form/naming, or create individual pages for several characters, of which would be greatly more undesirable than the current layout. At least currently, they're organised and manageable and deletion would further complicate matters and cause a bigger problem than some think already exists. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Keep all for now. Any notable and therefore real-world-sourced characters can go to the other EastEnder character pages that User:AnteaterZot mentions. As for "causing a bigger problem", all it would take is a concerned prod tag effort to prune the huge number of articles this show has in Wikipedia. I'll prod 5-6 a day, see what happens. Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC) It looks to me like the guideline that allowed many pages of characters to be consolidated into this lists was changed, without being well advertized, back in August 2007. One editor, in fact, changed how the policy reads, although supposedly this was a stylistic change of some sort. Since that seems unfair, we should retain these lists and let the members of the WikiProject clean up the whole collection in a systematic way. I also strongly suggest that the guideline be returned to its pre-August state, and then debated openly later. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment --Well, it turns out that there is a WikiProject that still cares about these pages. Lets try to accommodate their efforts to prune the pages down to a manageable number. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Which change to WP:FICT are you referring to. There was a major rewrite underway at that period, which had been advertised at the village pump. [1]. Any changes were discussed on the talk page, and typically represent consensus amongst those who engaged, per WP:CONSENSUS. Hiding T 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, given that many people still operate under the idea that lists of characters are a way out of wholesale deletion, and a valuable way to gain the cooperation of the fans, I would say that the published policy is irrelevant. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're welcome to say what you like, but it doesn't nullify policy. If that were the case we would have abolished WP:VANDAL a long time ago. If you wish to change the guideline, please start a discussion on the guideline's talk page, advertise it at the village pump and build a consensus, as was done in the previous change. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Perhaps if you enlightened us as to which part of the guidance it is you object, we might actually get somewhere. Hiding T 10:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm talking about here in AfD. Many people here still think that there is an explicit policy that allows the creation of these list articles as a refuge for lesser characters. The policy is now implicit, and some people still read it as allowing lists. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I seem to be misunderstanding you. Could you clarify what you meant by It looks to me like the guideline that allowed many pages of characters to be consolidated into this lists was changed, without being well advertized, back in August 2007. One editor, in fact, changed how the policy reads, although supposedly this was a stylistic change of some sort. Since that seems unfair. Do you still think it was unfair that the guidance was changed, even though it was well advertised, did not happen in one edit in August and many people contributed to a discussion regarding the change? Hiding T 10:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the best referenced are those that are incidentally mentioned on the BBC. There is a reasonable expectation that Wikipedia will provide informative encyclopedic information on a range of topics. But for something like "minor EastEnders characters" a fan site such as WalfordWeb should be people's first port of call. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - that's exactly the very point of wiki kernitou talk 04:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or at least wait ten minutes so I can save them all before you delete them which I suppose you probably will regardless. - 88.109.76.231 08:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per User:Gungadin and User:AnemoneProjectors. --UpDown 14:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All or transwiki. Article fail WP:Plot, WP:Fict, WP:WAF, WP:OR, this minutia of fancruft detail is not suitable and not encyclopedic. Ridernyc 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep all. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gungadin. "Fancruft" is a term that is being batted around too often. It is clear that the associated Wikiproject is working to remedy the "in-universe" bias in these lists. Brad (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gungadin and Brad. Eastenders isn't some obscure video game or manga, it has been one of the most popular television programmes in the UK and Ireland for the past twenty years. IMO "fancruft" is not a term that applies to a programme that is such a huge part of a country's culture. If the Guardian sees fit to have a paragraph about Mr. Papadopoulos, then I think Wikipedia should do the same. Bláthnaid 09:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep All per Gungadin and AnemoneProjectors. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now I know that American soaps get a plethora of coverage from magazines that I see on the newsstands every week, so I would not be surprised that if one bothered to look, one could find plenty of coverage for even the most minor EastEnders characters in British magazines. Surely one could find such coverage in magazines such as Radio Times, Inside Soap, What's On TV, and All About Soap, as well as a printed newspaper dedicated to EastEnders, The Walford Gazette. DHowell (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per kernitou.--Johnbull (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.